Supernaturalism vs. Panentheism

[MagusYanam]

One assumption I see a lot among atheists is the idea that God is an agent external to the universe who directly intervenes in it, producing supernatural acts and miracles (this is, in fact, one of the assumptions implicit in the Problem of Evil). But it is somewhat strange: the Abrahamic God does seem to have this aspect - God is referred to as an external agent with supernatural tendencies in multiple instances in Scripture, but also present is a strong inclination toward panentheism - the concept of a God who is at once transcendent of and present and imminent in the world and all its workings (for example, in the Gospel of John). Such a God could not rightly be considered a divine 'Santa Claus' who answers prayers of demand and directly intervenes in the affairs of the world, and also, such a God is not threatened by evolutionary, geological or physical science or pushed 'into the gaps', as it were.

To atheists: is it possible that the primary reasons for atheism are based on an assumption about the supernaturalist nature of God? To theists: is there a better case to be made for a panentheistic God than for a supernaturalistic God?

[Bugmaster]

Well, my own primary reason for atheism is my rejection of dualism, and thus I reject any kind of god.

However, I'd argue that if a god exists but does not interfere in the world in any way, he is completely irrelevant, and we might as well believe in a world without gods -- because a godless world is functionally identical to a world with a god that does nothing, but the latter world is less parsimonious.

Furthermore, the problem of evil is still a problem even if the creator deity does not interfere in the world. To use a trivial example, the creator deity could've prevented a lot of pain and suffering (and medicare expenses) by making our teeth renewable just like our nails are... but he chose to not do so. And of course, there are earthquakes and plagues and other natural disasters to consider... The absolute least the creator could've done is give us stronger bones and better immune systems.

[Jester]

To atheists: is it possible that the primary reasons for atheism are based on an assumption about the supernaturalist nature of God? To theists: is there a better case to be made for a panentheistic God than for a supernaturalistic God?

I've wanted to bring this issue up many times, though it often seems dificult to explain to one who is antagonistic.
As for answering the question, I definitely see a panentheistic God as easier to establish with human logic (though not necessarily any more true). It seems that this "intrinsic" element is easier for us to resolve with the modern forms of thinking (specifically science). In fact, the two "types" may be more a matter of our perspective than anything else. If science is an attempt to explain all events, then any "supernatural" act of God will ultimately be explained- if God contradicts our explanations, we change our rules of science until they fit with what God does. This is not to belittle science (it is a very purposeful and noble study), but to point out that science, as it seeks to explain the world by secular terms, can never prove or disprove God's "Supernatural Nature".

[micatala]

This issue has come up to some extent in the A defense against creationist logic thread.

I would agree that a penentheistic view is much easier to accomodate with modern science. Although I am not sure I could make a complete, coherent, and consistent argument along these lines, I view the dualism between naturalism and supernaturalism as artificial and unnecessary.

If one ascribes all that exists ultimately to God, then in a sense, there are no supernatural events.